I often hear the term "replacement theology" thrown about whenever dispensationalists (and dispensational messianics) want to demonize covenant theology.
Not all dispensationalists like to throw that term around. In my experiences on the internet, the term "Replacement theology" has functioned as a type of "Shibboleth" that distinguishes "our" view from "their" view. Its an effort on the part of some dispensationalists to draw a "line in the sand" on the distinction between Israel and the Church. Its a kind of emotional polarization rather than any helpful explanation or description.
But the term simply doesn't make sense.
"Replacement theology" assumes, it is said, that the church replaced Israel. Show me anyone who actually believes this.
In scholarly circles, replacement theology refers to the belief that the promises of Israel have been transferred to the church. There are at least a couple of variations. Some historical premillennialists such as George Ladd hold to it, where the church inherits the millennial promises to Israel. There are also a number of theonomic postmillennialists who hold that in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem God transferred the blessings from Israel to the Church. Now in both these cases, its not the church which does the transfer, its God. A number of theonomists and postmils hold that Israel will one day turn en masse to Jesus as Savior. So "replacement theology" is a concept which is not anti-semitic.
However in popular circles the term "replacement theology" often serves as a thinly veiled accusation for antisemitism. If you've encountered the arguments I'm sure you know what I mean. Also some dispensationalists have used it "in-house" to accuse other dispensationalists who hold to a pretrib premil end-time view. So in reality the term is virtually useless these days, and its more an emotionally charged accusation than anything substantial.
Covenant theologians don't because covenant theologians see continuity between the people of God. To assume that covenant theologians think that the church placed Israel, you have to assume a radical discontinuity between Israel and the church- that is, you assign dispensationalist assumptions upon a group of Christians who make no assumptions.
But covenant theologians don't make that assumption.
Yes, it is true that covenant theologians don't make
that assumption - but like the rest of humanity, covenant theologians do make certain assumptions. As is often the case, people see views different from their own through the lens of their own view. Dispensationalists who shout "replacement theology" quite often are the ones who have the most difficulty understanding any view different from their own.
Covenant theologians see one people of God throughout all of human history. The church, in covenant theology, cannot replace Israel because there is no difference between believers in ethnic Israel and believers in the church.
Yes, this is the continuation view - that the Church (people of God) continues Israel (people of God). Its "continuation theology" and not "replacement theology."
What often gets lost in the discussion is the basic definitions: the church consists of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Israel consists of believing Jews and unbelieving Jews. There is overlap between Israel and the Church are the believing Jews, such as Peter, Paul, John, etc.
So there is continuity and discontinuity. The believing Jews constitute a continuity with the remnant of Israel. The believing Gentiles, now co-heirs with believing Jews, constitute a discontinuity between the OT separation of Israel and Gentiles.
So we get some basic variations depending on what one emphasizes:
1) continuation,
2) expansion - where the OT promises were originally to Jews but now expanded to include Gentiles,
3) parenthesis, where the "prophetic clock" has stopped regarding God's dealing with Israel as a nation, so that the gospel might be preached,
4) replacement, where the church as a new entity has replaced Israel as the old entity for inheriting God's promises.
LDG